Shepherd v A G & M Jacobs [1995] UKEAT 765_95_0105

EAT

Shepherd v A G & M Jacobs

[1995] UKEAT 765_95_0105 · 1995-05-01

JUDGE HARGROVE Q.C. : Mr Shepherd has not appeared before us, he is disabled and cannot attend.

He has provided us with an extensive argument which we have read carefully. He makes a claim under the Wages Act that he has not been paid overtime. Originally he claimed unfair selection for redundancy, but he lacked the two years employment qualification.

He was employed as a levy bailiff. The respondents are bailiffs and enquiry agents. The terms and conditions of employment stated:

"YOU MAY BE REQUIRED TO WORK REASONABLE AMOUNTS OF OVERTIME AS AND WHEN NECESSARY ON THE TERMS AND PAY IN FORCE AT THAT TIME."

The Industrial Tribunal dealt with those matter in paragraph 5. It says this:

"5 We have considered the problem of clause 5 of the Statement of Terms and Conditions. On a strict interpretation of that clause it is clear that when an employee is required, and that is the operative word in the clause, to work overtime then he will work that overtime on the terms and pay in force. That meant in this case that the Respondents decide what they would pay. We find on a legal interpretation of that clause that first of all the employee must be required to work overtime. We are satisfied that Mr Shepherd was not required to work overtime he was paid his bonus even when he was not doing as many calls as would perhaps warrant the bonus he was being paid. ... No doubt that did involve him in a considerable amount of extra travelling, nevertheless we are satisfied that there was no contractual entitlement to overtime, and therefore no deduction within the meaning of Section 1 and 7 of the Wages Act 1986. The application must be dismissed."

The Industrial Tribunal heard all the witnesses, and the interpretation cannot, in our view, be faulted. The alternative would be that the employee would decide on how long a job would take and thereafter charge overtime. The interpretation given by the Industrial Tribunal is the one that is necessary to give business efficacy to the contract. There is therefore no arguable point of law in this case, and it is dismissed.